That appears to be "normal" for humans, does it not? Can we not see the
same thing happening on this list when it comes to "mysticism"; i.e.;
judgement made without examination?
> > Would you suggest that Socrates' admonition to "Know thyself."
> > applies in this modern age?
>
> Yes. Why shouldn't it?
Would "knowing" oneself be useful as a prelude to re-programming?
> > What do you consider "ego nonsense"?
> The fact that we all like to regard ourselves as somehow better than we
> really are. Even the most deranged killers think that they have a good
> reason for what they do.
Isn't this an almost universal trait of humans to self-justify?
> > How would someone "know" they were seeing themselves as they "truly
are?
>
> Because their internal model of themselves would match their actions. If,
> say, I was to go around telling everyone that I was going to be a famous
> writer yet I never wrote anything, then I would clearly have an ego
> problem and would never attain my goal until I solved it.
>
> > How does seeing oneself as one truly is, help to see your life the
same
> > way any other individual sees their own life?
This question was in response to..."Probably, you already saw your life
differently from the way any of us see our lives."
> Uh, can you start that question again?
Since all humans have different values, world-views, etc. they would each
see their lives as they are; uniquely different. It would not be
reasonable to expect any two individuals to have the same life, or to even
share the same world-view, would it?
> > Do you think you are 'just' a computer?
> There's no neurophysiological evidence to think otherwise, unless the
> quantum mechanical effects in the brain are truly significant. You cannot
> conclusively prove that we don't have 'souls', but there seems little
> point when the vast majority of human behaviour can be explained without
> them.
>
> > Is this just another way of simplifying humans?
>
> I don't really understand the question, but if anything I'd say it's
> another way of complexifying humans. Claiming that we're 'souls' in
> physical bodies is a much greater simplification. If we accept that we
are
> computers then exploring the precise details of our operation will be
> extremely complex. Frankly I find the idea of humans as computers far
more
> bizzare and puzzling than the idea of humans as immortal souls incarnated
> in flesh.
Have you studied anatomy and physiology yet? The point being, that when
humans began making and using machines extensively, they had a mechanistic
view of the Universe, including bodies. Now they appear to be doing the
same with the body, which has to be a gross over-simplification of this
very complex item.
> Nope. It's not something you can tell to anyone; they have to go out and
> find it for themselves, though you could point them in the right
direction
> as the Buddhists try to do. You'll just have to trust that the switch
> exists and go hunting for yours by yourself. Anyone who claims that they
> can tell you how to do it is trying to sell a religion.
This sounds consistent with our experience. :-)
> Because 100% bliss would require that I shut down all processing in my
> brain except for the bliss-circuits. I've never been there, but I've been
> close.
If you have never "been there", you don't really "know" what 100% Bliss
requires, do you?
> Been there, done that. I sort of agree if you use 'letting in god' in the
> sense of Crowley's 'true will'. A lot of mystics have talked about moving
> out of the way and letting 'god' work thru them. This seems to be what
> they're talking about; the idea that 'god' created us with our 'true
> wills/true natures' and that the way to follow the 'will of god' is to
> find your 'true will' and follow that.
It also sounds like Joseph Campbells' "follow your bliss".
> Seems about right to me, but this depends mostly on motivation. Many
> people set out to change habits but don't have the motivation to do so
> properly or are so stuck in their social role that the people they
> interact with won't let them. It's just a matter of repeating the new
> behaviour until the new pathways through the brain's neural network take
> over and the old ones rot away through disuse.
We have seen this too. Perhaps if they first understood themselves, they
would also understand their habits.
> > Do you know of a modern, scientific, rational form of mysticism?
>
> Crowley's Thelema is the closest that I know of, though the Chaos
> Magickians might qualify. Of course Crowley never did get the hang of
> ego-loss himself, much to his chagrin.
"...chagrin..." disappointment....comes from expectation....this
explains why he "never did get the hang of ego-loss"
> > Do you know of any mystical scientists, living or dead?
>
> Didn't Crowley study Chemistry at Cambridge? I think someone already
> mentioned Newton, and various 20th century scientists have had some kind
> of mystic beliefs. Do Leary and Lilly count?
Of course. We were just checking. :-)
ard